Abstract-Indonesia is a Nation that embraces many different ethnic groups. Each of them has its own customary law, which has been implemented for centuries. Even though Indonesia is regulated by its rules of law, for the private matters, some customary laws and Islamic law are still applicable. Problems are arisen when rules regarding certain things in customary or Islamic laws and national law are conflicting. The solution is usually a traditional approach that put supremacy of national law. Many indigenous people who have bound by their customary law or Islamic law for decades, cannot easily accept enforcement of the national law. Therefore, positivistic approach per se will potentially create more problems. This paper will examine how ethics or morality may play important roles in determining what is the best solution that can maintain the balance of principle of legal certainty and principle of fairness.Keywords-conflict of laws, legal collision, ethic supremacy, national law, adat law, customary law, Islamic law, law as integrity.

Abstrak: Tulisan berikut membahas pemikiran hukum Anglo-Amerika yang dikenal sebagai  filsafat hukum. Dua pokok  yang dibahas adalah masalah metodologi dan  debat  Hart/Dworkin. Inti pertanyaan yang dikaji di sini berkenaan dengan hakikat filsafat hukum. Untuk itu lang- kah  yang  diambil adalah dengan menelusuri situasi  debat  Hart/ Dworkin dan sesudahnya sebagai suatu debat metodologis dan kemudian menggunakannya untuk mengurai pertanyaan tadi. Debat tersebut telah memicu suatu palingan metodologis dalam filsafat hukum analitik yang lantas  mengubah fokus  dan  makna dari  kegiatan melakukan filsafat hukum, yakni  dari  refleksi  atas  hakikat hukum (dan  hubungannya dengan moralitas) menjadi refleksi atas hakikat kegiatan itu sendiri. Ber- dasarkan telaah kritis terhadap konstelasi dan tren populer dari sejumlah yang ide yang dikembangkan seputar eksistensi debat  Hart/Dworkin, termasuk publikasi terbaru teks kuliah Dworkin di Harvard Law Review yang menanggapi Postscript Hart, tulisan ini mengemukakan argumen bahwa wacana filsafat hukum kontemporer menyentuh ranah kritik ter- hadap dua  tesis metafisis,  epistemologis, dan etis yang tampak sejajar, yakni  dikotomi fakta  dengan nilai  dan  pemisahan hukum dengan moralitas.   Kata-kata Kunci:  Metodologi filsafat  hukum, debat  Hart/Dworkin, hukum dan  moralitas, filsafat  hukum analitik, palingan metodologis, metodologi normatif, metodologi deskriptif.   Abstract: This paper presents an exploration of the Anglo-American legal thought, better  known as jurisprudence. A subject matter of it is two interrelated themes, i.e. the problem of methodology and  the “Hart/Dworkin debate”. The main  question addressed here  concerning the nature of jurisprudence. It takes an inquiry to the Hart/Dworkin debate situation and its aftermath as a methodological debate and whilst use it to scrutinize that question. The debate has been stirred up the so called methodological turn in analytical jurisprudence, thus vary the focus and meaning of the activity  of doing  jurisprudence, from a reflection  of the nature of law (and its relationship to morality) to a reflection of the nature of that activity  itself. Based on the critical examination of constellation and popular trend of some ideas which developed around the existence Hart/Dworkin debate, including the recent  publication of Dworkin’s lost text in Harvard Law Review replying to Hart’s Postscript, this paper argues that  the  contemporary discourse of jurisprudence attains the significance of a criticism of two kinds of metaphysical, epistemological, and  ethical  theses  which  are  apparently parallel, i.e. the  fact/value dichotomy and the separation of law and morality.   Keywords: methodology of jurisprudence, Hart/Dworkin debate, law and  morality, analytic  jurisprudence, methodological turn,  normative methodology, descriptive methodology.

This article is the result of an explorative study on methodological issues in Indonesian legal science.  It uses a literature review to trace current debate on three interrelated issues concerning legal scholarship, legal development and legal pluralism. Each of these issues will be juxtaposes to contemporary legal discourse. Separately the issue of legal scholarship will be just apose to the praxis of legal research methodology and legal education; legal development to “law and development” paradigm; legal pluralism to rule of law. The author follows the legal thinking tradition employed by influential legal scholars: Paul Scholten, Soediman Kartohadiprodjo and B. Arief Sidharta. The standing of other prominent legal authors such as Mochtar Kusuma-Atmadja and Soetandyo Wignyosoebroto, to the extent that their ideas are relevant to this article, will be briefly discussed.

Naturalism is one of the main topics that explore the philosophical discourse. This article intends to discuss the philosophical problems of naturalism in jurisprudence. The argumentations of naturalism have affected the configuration of methodological debate in jurisprudence; between the descriptive approach and the evaluative approach. By reviewing the project of naturalism in metaphysics and epistemology and then scrutinizing how the ideas of naturalism work in jurisprudence, this article will exhibit a contribution of the philosophy of science to the scientific reflection of law. The development of naturalism creates challenges and chances at once for methodological tracing in the philosophy of law.